Can Thread Moderators ignore a branch of argument?

[noninho]

Please read this before commenting here.

WARNING: This is not an attack to any Moderator/Administrator, nor to the Site's/Wiki's/Discussion Threads'/CRTs' rules, as it's prohibited by the rules and i'm not in favour of doing that. My intent here is to tell what just happened and to ask both people's and other MODs/ADMs opinion on this.

ShiohAH and and me clearly pointed out a branch of argument that Scribblenauts is indeed, on a level, inside a branch of DC's Continuity.

This was after Ant called out staff people to talk about it and who voted, voted against it.

mainly Lephyr, who "continued" arguing, but Maverick_Zero_X and IdiosyncraticLawyer too, blatantly ignored it. Consciously and by choice from my perspective
i pointed out after ProfetcusInfinity first said the thread could be closed, that exactly 5 people voted in favour, 5 voted against, and there was unanswered points that i brought and ShinonAH made edits to the Sandbox he provided

after that, i stated the 5-5-0 scoreboard, Iamunanimousinthat pointed out that the argument of the TL branch was unanswered, i reinterated it
to which Maverick_Zero_X and IdiosyncraticLawyer ignored by choice and i believe so via Maverick_Zero_X just pointing out my scoreboard and pointing out this should be outright closed.

under which rules can people, adm/mod or not, straight up vote, ignore further argumentation and close stuff?
Yes, the approval side needs 3 ADM/MOD/Bureaucrats, but in what world is a 5-5-0 thread concluded? mainly: ignoring things told by the start, and reinforced with evidence in a later point multiple times.

What can i do other than posting here? Should i post it at Rule Violation Thread? mainly: can the thread be reopened? i'm not against finishing something whose discussion has ended, and i'm 100% ok if the side i'm in ended up losing the discussion, but i'm sure i made my point that this one is 100% not.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

No, no staff can ignore arguments as it's their duty to read them and reach a conclusion. And btw, after read the thread you linked I don't feel they ignored the opposition points, @Maverick_Zero_X began doubting it, @LephyrTheRevanchist then pointed various times the problems with the thread and other staff agreed (@IdiosyncraticLawyer vote don't count in this case as Content Moderator), the opposition side just didn't agreed with it, something pretty normal.

Also, the "votes" of normal users don't actually count to decide if a thread it's accepted or not, it's the staff vote which decide that.

Also, this is the wiki definition of one-sided crossovers:

Onesided crossovers officially take place within one continuity, but not the other. Given that some characters may be parodies of their original counterparts, they could potentially get a separate profile scaling from the other verse based on their importance to the story.

One example is the version of Dante in Megami Tensei, who is based on his Devil May Cry counterpart, with the same name and appearance, but a slightly altered story to fit in more with the Shin Megami Tensei verse. However, the character in question may not be used to scale to the Devil May Cry cast.

Profiles for crossovers not canon to the main story of one or more of the franchises involved may only be created according to the regulations defined in the Canon page.

The reason of why @LephyrTheRevanchist was asking so much for proof of the comic events getting referenced in other New 52 comics (or other DC comis in general) was to confirm if they apply to DC continuity. And no, the fact that DC just published them don't necessarily makes them a canon crossover, similar situations have happened in the past, I think this is a similar case as with RWBY crossover with DC.

You could ask for other staff input but unless some Thread Moderator, Administrator or Bureaucrat agree with the opposition the thread tould continue closed.

 

[noninho]

So Maxwell would need to exist on a prior-to-the-TL-branch comic?
except for that point, seems fair enough.

Also, the "votes" of normal users don't actually count to decide if a thread it's accepted or not, it's the staff vote which decide that.

also, i didn't knew that piece of information.
if that's so, i thought i would be in Content Revision section when VS becomes a little still
but now, to me, CRTs immediatelly s**ks *ss. 100%.


well, ty for the summarizing, mate.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

The FRAs of regular users don’t decide if a thread gets accepted, so a “5-5-0” isn’t really accurate here. It was moreso just several staff disagreements and zero staff agreements.

 

[Expectro2000xxx]

So Maxwell would need to exist on a prior-to-the-TL-branch comic?
except for that point, seems fair enough.


also, i didn't knew that piece of information.
if that's so, i thought i would be in Content Revision section when VS becomes a little still
but now, to me, CRTs immediatelly s**ks *ss. 100%.


well, ty for the summarizing, mate.

I mean, ask for an appearance prior to the crossover it's unreasonable, but the question was more so if after the crossover Max was referenced by the DC side (like a Flash comic where he just randomly mention Max or the events of the crossover). That or maybe some statements from DC writers or DC itself saying that Scribblenauts it's canon to the mainline of DC comics (I know there is the own writer statement but that still support the one-sided crossover, it needs other people statements to count).

I mean, if literally all normal users votes counted then things with a great or passionate fanbase would get one sided upgraded, the general example used it's for things like Dragon Ball or DC Comics, but even with works significantly less popular it would still be messy (I can use as example the case of Tokyo Revenger where if it was based on normal users everyone would be supersonic to hypersonic and 9-A, even if the logic used was objetively wrong/faulty).

Normal users input matter in the sense that they can explain things and convince both the masses and staff, but without staff support things can't advance.

 

[ImmortalDread]

After reading the whole thread, I don't see how @LephyrTheRevanchist ignored any arguments.

Please read this pages to understand how our voting system work:

• https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Discussion_Rules
• https://vsbattles.fandom.com/wiki/Site_Rules

 

[ImmortalDread]

well, ty for the summarizing, mate

Then, this thread can he closed.

 

[noninho]

As it clearly has shown a misunderstanding of mine
I ask for apology for taking you guys' time here.